Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
WG2002 is high end design tool but very expense. It costs around $36K for the complete package + maintenance fee. PSD14 is more affordable but the auto-router is not as good.
WG2002 is high end design tool but very expense. It costs around $36K for the complete package + maintenance fee. PSD14 is more affordable but the auto-router is not as good.
If you want to have a routed design than any autorouter which is capable to route 100% is ok.
If you want to save space/layers/ have a nice routing ... no autorouter is suitable to achieve the goal ... especcially if the design has lot of nets.
Even the Cadence guys can't route an example board with 8 layers which has already been routed with 6 layers...
For rouing,mentor'sautoactive is best.
for si, mentor's icx is best.
for design capture, mentor'epd is best.
but lazy mentor wanna to terminate the
epd.
cadence is worst.you will see why synopys crash cadence.in fact, cadence
only strong in marketing. you are silly too
from japan
It would be nice if people gave the types of boards they used these programs on and the reasons for their preferences.
One of my friends lays out boards for ECL with differential lines. He swears by a Cadence product that lets him manually simultaneously route the two differential lines with automatic spacing between them and equal lengths.
He swears by a Cadence product that lets him manually simultaneously route the two differential lines with automatic spacing between them and equal lengths.
Actually, in Mentor Graphics (formerly Innoveda) PowerPCB also have this option (High Speed Design) in thier package. very useful especially during manual routing with online DRC. It can even specified the minimum and maximum length of the trace.
Should the desired length is too long for the routed length, it will create a shape that look like a pulse of train on a scope inorder to kept within limits.
Pretty cool but expensive (abt US$13-15K) just for this option.
I tried allegro and expedition. I decided on expedition on several reasons:
DC and expedition ECO/cross probing very smooth.
better lib manager in expedition. more organized.
the GUI is bad in allegro, it is a unix program just turned windows. And it crashes kind often. well expedition crashes too but less often. I just found expedition easier to learn. And easier to create library.
I was using pads, I used to go from powerpcb to blazer all the time, very frustrating, with expedtion, everything in one package, much easier, save a lot of time.
For autorouting, well, I cannot really say, I always use mixed manual and auto, and they are all good enough for what I am doing.
It is actually other feature that becomes more important to me. faster to create a board, faster to make changes, expedition has the expand trace feature which is very useful.
well I will stick to expedition for a while. I love it so far.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
